Case Study : ' Agostini Vs. Felton '

This paper argues that school vouchers can have a tremendous impact on incentives and performances Depends on the type of voucher. Two types exist. The ‘voucher shock” and the “threat of vouchers.” Many people are against school vouchers. The argument is that the vouchers are a violation of constitutional rights. That spending funding and forcing schools to behave a certain way is unethical. However, many are supportive of the school voucher program. Parents feel that if a school is not up to par perhaps loosing students and perhaps closing the doors is the best choice. Many believe that children have a right to education and to decide exactly how the citizens tax dollars toward education are being spent and if the youth are educated properly.

Decision: The court ruled against the school district and upheld the establishment clause of the first

Since the 1980s, charter schools have allowed families to exercise school choice, a practice that had begun a few decades earlier when parents preferred to control their children’s education because of religious views or racial prejudices. As dissatisfaction with the performance public schools grew during the late 20th century, parents called on government to subsidize an arrangement where children could receive adequate education outside of the traditional public school system. Thus, two major school choice devices emerged: charter schools, privately run schools that receive public funding, and tuition vouchers, which cover some or all of tuition at participating private schools.

In cases having to do with constitutionality, the issue of the separation of church and state arises with marked frequency. This battle, which has raged since the nation?s founding, touches the very heart of the United States public, and pits two of the country's most important influences of public opinion against one another. Although some material containing religious content has found its way into many of the nation's public schools, its inclusion stems from its contextual and historical importance, which is heavily supported by material evidence and documentation. It often results from a teacher?s own decision, rather than from a decision handed down from above by a higher power. The proposal of the Dover Area School District to

The prayer was, “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country” (Oyez 1). The state of New York approved the prayer, and the prayer was nondenominational. Children whose parents did not want them to recite the prayer did not have to participate, and were excused; reciting the prayer was voluntary. Therefore, the prayer was not mandatory and was supposed to serve as a purpose of moral education only for those who wanted to acknowledge God as the source of all blessings. However, New York Lawyers argued that the prayer offended the Establishment Clause, suggesting that the state of New York was officially approving a religion by approving the prayer. This action eventually led to the Supreme Court ruling the prayer as unconstitutional. With the success of ruling Engel v. Vitale unconstitutional, the case set a precedent for many more court cases in which the Supreme Court used the Establishment Clause as a jurisdiction for removing religious practices in public schools.

A more recent case which is similar to Everson v. Board of Education, is Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn. The taxpayers of Arizona were challenging the fact that a state law was providing tax credits to those who were donating to school tuition organizations in order for the schools to provide scholarships to those attending private/religious schools. The claim was that this was a violation of the Establishment Clause (Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 2016.), which is the first of several pronouncements within the First Amendment within the U.S. Constitution, or the first ten amendments within the Bill of Rights, which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” (Bill of Rights, 2016.). The Supreme Court had ruled 5-4 and argued that the plaintiff did not have enough information and standing to bring to the suit. Justice Kagen, in her dissent, stated that “cash grants and targeted tax breaks are means of accomplishing the same government object; to provide financial support to select individuals or organizations.” (Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 2016.). Although the ruling was made on “narrow grounds”, according to Peter Wooley, a political science and direction of the PublicMind Poll, the plaintiff in one “guise or another will be back another day” (Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 2016.).

A public school in New York during the start of each school day started with the Pledge of Allegiance and followed by a nondenominational prayer. The New York state law also allowed students to skip the prayer if found offensive. A parent of a student attending this school sued deeming the law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Supreme Courts majority rule (8-1) claimed YES the public school sponsored prayer violates Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, even with allowing students to skip the prayer, it was still considered unconstitutional. This case is important because Chief Justice, Earl Warren states that school sanctioned prayers, including any type of public promotion of religion, violates the Establishment

Board of Eduation. The issue of concern was whether New Jersey could reimburse transportation costs to the parents of schoolchildren, at both public and nonpublic schools. As a heavy assortment of the nonpublic schools were catholic, an anti-Catholic organization within the state challenged the program, arguing it violated the Establishment clause. In a 5-4 ruling, the court upheld the law, stating that transportation could be considered a child benefit. However, Everson’s legacy goes far beyond the upholding of New Jersey’s reimbursement program because it was the first case of its kind whose opinion dealt directly with the Establishment clause. Furthermore, the author of the majority opinion, Justice Hugo Black, invoked the Jeffersonian metaphor of “a wall of separation,” writing, “In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state.” Based upon this line of thinking alone, it is difficult to see why the court ruled in favor of the defendant. However, Justice Black also considered the requirements of Free Exercise clause, claiming that for the state to instate “public welfare legislation,” and then hampering citizens from receiving it on grounds of their religious beliefs would be a violation of the free exercise of the religion. Justice Black’s consideration of the Establishment clause in Everson therefore serves as demarcation point in the judicial history of education. Post-Everson, writes Hubert Morken, “many judicial challenges to educational policy have been couched in church/state

In 1947, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in favor of the defendant in a case named Everson v Board of Education. In this case, the Majority opinion laid out an interpretation of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the Constitution for the first time in regards to how it should be applied. As such, it would set the precedence for the way that the Supreme Court would look at the First Amendment even until today. Although in this particular instance, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of religion and schools, this new definition of the First Amendment would go on to be used against religion in the American public school system for years to come until it would be almost entirely eradicated from public schools today. While many scholars have written on this case and have taken a stand on whether or not the interpretation is poor or good, they all agree on the impact that it had on Supreme Court decision’s moving forward.

Intro- about 10 ten years ago, in the year 1951,the New York Board of Regents approved a “Quote” “nondenominational prayer”. It was 22 words long and The blandest of invocations read as follows: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country." voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. A group of parent in New Hyde Park, New York Steven Engel was a parent in New Hyde Park, New York. He and a group of other parents objected to the daily speaking of the prayer, even though it was voluntary, at the start of each school day. Steven Engel and his group of supporting parents sued William Vitale, the president of the local school board. The parents reasoning was that this optional prayer didn’t align with the views of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The 1st amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The establishment clause states quote, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Originally, the Establishment Clause was only added to the Constitution to keep the federal government from establishing a national religion.

Since the state gave aid to the church related school it violated the Establishment Clause.

Gordon continues her article by going into the pros and cons of why vouchers may or may not work. Many people think that the American education is failing their kids and the vouchers are a solution to that problem because, they are given the option to leave if the school is not fulfilling their student’s needs. Supporters of vouchers see it as more effective

Issue: Do statutes that provide state funding for non-public, non-secular schools violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? Is it constitutional for the state to provide financial assistance to religious schools for the cost of teaching secular subjects? The trial of Lemon v. Kurtzman was a groundbreaking case that took place in Pennsylvania. The case began because the state of Pennsylvania passed a law that allowed the local government to use money to fund educational programs that taught religious-based lessons, activities, and studies. This law was passed through the Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education

One of the biggest arguments for vouchers is that they allow parents to choose what school is right for their child. Parents, in taxes, pay for their children’s education, and they should be able to send their children where they want with their education dollars. These vouchers also allow for the parent to decide what school is best fitting for their child based on their racial, cultural, and religious background. A second argument in favor of the school voucher is that, “Advocates believe that vouchers promote fairness, participatory democracy, and engagement with public debate as well as improved quality of education” (Hochschild & Scovronick, 125). Parents who are unable to afford homes in more prominent neighborhoods are forced to send their children to failing districts because they are unable to afford the tuition costs of private schools. If the voucher program was being used, then lower-class parents would have the opportunity to use their own tax dollars to send their children to a more prominent school.

Education in the United States is now declining. Although our universities are top notch, our lower education public schools are struggling more than ever to compete with the international schooling system. Some propose a voucher plan that would allow certain parents a small choice in the school their children are able to attend. This voucher would be used for tuition along with other costs at a school the parent chooses, but public schools would charge tuition and remain competitive with other schools to